Religion...

[grovester]

HBO is showing "Sunset Limited" by Cormac McCarthy, featuring Samuel Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones.  Quite entertaining, Ignatius, I think you would enjoy it!

[ignatius]

i don't get hbo anymore.. what's the premise?

[grovester]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sunset_Limited

I'm sure it will be available on netflix at some point.  Classic 2 person dialog on god, humanity, suicide, all the fun stuff.

[aknowledgeableperson]

good points for each side.  especially liked the ending since neither Black nor White changed their thoughts.

[ignatius]

i haven't see it but if someone believed in flying unicorns and then after a reasonable discussion that such an idea is likely part of their imagination yet they are still convinced they feel flying unicorns are a part of their lives, would it be a good ending if they didn't change their thoughts?  

if it were an individual, he'd be called insane.  
if it were an isolated group, they'd be called a cult.
but when such ideas gain political power with the masses, it's called a religion.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Sorry, the topic of flying unicorns did not come up.  So it was a serious discussion on both sides.

[ignatius]

Understood.  Since it discussed concepts accepted by the masses, then it is a serious discussion.  If it were a concept only accepted by an individual, it wouldn't be a serious discussion.  Curious.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Just that your continual use of flying unicorns does not make for a serious discussion, especially since that seems to be your only fallback response, to belittle the other side.  The program was a discussion between two individuals that had just met, for whatever reason (by chance or direction), and their conversation showed respect, but not acceptance of the other side.

And it wouldn't be entertaining having TLJ only saying flying unicorns in response to comments made.  On second thought, maybe it would be entertaining for you.

[ignatius]

Actually I use flying unicorns consistently in all seriousness as an example of the power of human imagination, not to belittle.  It could be replaced with Medusa if you'd like, or Zeus.  If you think of it as belittling, then you are insulting those who once believed in flying unicorns (or Medusa or Zeus).  So is the flying unicorn concept imaginative (or Medusa) but somehow the concept of other supernatural forces is not?  Curious still since all concepts use the same mechanism.

In all seriousness, it is particularly disappointing to see human ideas attributed to these external obscure forces instead of the people who deserve credit for them.  It cheapens the human experience.

[AJoD]

It's hard for me to succinctly explain why this link is appropriate to this thread, but I think it is:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/ ... tupid.html

About science rather than religion, basically a guy sticking up for real science against the rise of junk science...by attacking a guy worried about the decline of science.

[KCMax]

It's hard for me to succinctly explain why this link is appropriate to this thread, but I think it is:

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/ ... tupid.html

About science rather than religion, basically a guy sticking up for real science against the rise of junk science...by attacking a guy worried about the decline of science.

Very interesting stuff. I read a lot of pop social science stuff - Malcolm Gladwell and the like. And while it is entertaining, I can't help thinking that some people do take some of the stuff too seriously. A lot of it seems to be justifying causes after the fact - finding patterns in a Rorshach test.

[ignatius]

yeah, the scientific method is just a tool and like any other tool can be misused. otoh, it's not always a very good tool when used on human behavior. it's often used in the wrong context too.  way too often.  

here's an example...
someone from out of town visits lee's summit for a week and observes everyone is white. he observes this 7 days in a row, everyone he runs into is white, including nearly everyone at the airport.   if he were to conclude nearly everyone he specifically ran into were white, it would be a proper use of the scientific method.  if he were to conclude that nearly everyone in lee's summit or even the kc metro were white based on that experience, it's perhaps a scientific method of observation, but the interpretation and application is taken out of context.  there are probably better examples but it's amazing how some studies come out with this kind of oversight.  and this isn't the only way observation data is misused.  that's why peer review is an important part of the process, but isn't used often enough before studies are released to the public. and even when things are intended to be reviewed, the reviewers are sometimes not being as critical as they should be.  

the article makes a good point about single studies... single studies mean almost nothing (though are important to get new ideas started).  if 10 studies using various methodologies came to the same conclusion, the outcome will likely be considered broadly reasonable.  most 'single study' scientific claims really aren't very solid though.  

and what often happens is say... 10 studies may occur over a period of years but each study is released to the media when completed... so one study claims one thing and it's considered 'true', perpetuated by the media, until the next study comes out. this repeats through 10 series of media reports and now no one trusts science because the results keep changing.  if the 10 studies were reviewed after all completed and before any of them were released, and the net found that 5 claim one thing and 5 claim another, then there is no conclusion to make.  the first few should have never made it out.  science works when using multiple paths of testing and getting it peer reviewed before releasing the results.

there's enough bad science out there.  it hurts science even more when 'single studies' are plastered all over the media.

[ignatius]

this get's back to something discussed a while back in thread about 'faith' vs. 'on what grounds do we accept something'.  for me, if something proposed has multiple independent paths (i mean very different methodologies taken) that generally tell the same story, it has more merit than if only one method of testing tells a story.  ie, i accept evolution in nature because there are many very different fields of study that all point to it.  i do not however fully accept the big bang because there aren't enough varying methods that tell the same story.  on supernatural forces and afterlife, there's virtually no information to suggest these are reasonably likely other than our imaginations.

[AJoD]

Yeah, I wasn't familiar with the Lehrer article or the "Decline Effect", and frankly, it just sounds dumb. Learning that someone was making such an argument was the most "new" bit of interesting info.

But I thought he had a good way of making several other points in the course of debunking the Decline Effect.

One of the most worthwhile points to me is to point out the unscientificness of the "soft sciences." My job is largely reliant on the social sciences, so I don't at all think it's without value. But I do think "science" is improperly invoked in a lot of public policy arguments, while philosophical or religious or moral belief structures (no less valid than faulty science) are marginalized in public discourse.

[KCMax]

the article makes a good point about single studies... single studies mean almost nothing.  if 10 studies using various methodologies came to the same conclusion, the outcome will likely be considered broadly reasonable.  most 'single study' scientific claims really aren't very solid though.  

and what often happens is say... 10 studies may occur over a period of years but each study is released to the media when completed... so one study claims one thing and it's considered 'true', perpetuated by the media, until the next study comes out. this repeats through 10 series of media reports and now no one trusts science because the results keep changing.  if the 10 studies were reviewed after all completed and before any of them were released, and the net found that 5 claim one thing and 5 claim another, then there is no conclusion to make.  the first few should have never made it out.  science works when using multiple paths of testing and getting it peer reviewed before releasing the results.

This is the vaccines = autism controversy in a nutshell isn't it?

[mean]

Sort of, although iirc it's starting to look like the guy pushing that particular theory wasn't doing legitimate work in the first place, his results were screwy if not outright fabricated, and the whole idea was to float a BS theory so that he could turn around and sell a bunch of books about it or something like that.

[KCMax]

Sort of, although iirc it's starting to look like the guy pushing that particular theory wasn't doing legitimate work in the first place, his results were screwy if not outright fabricated, and the whole idea was to float a BS theory so that he could turn around and sell a bunch of books about it or something like that.

Yea, I was speaking more of how the media took one report, and even though it contradicted ten other reports, it made news because it was different and a bunch of parents of autistic kids desperate for answers took the ball and ran with it.

[ignatius]

Even  formidable scientists misuse the scientific method to a point. They may be properly executing it but will often use it in a speculative context that is weak on substance.  M-theory (an attempt at a theory of everything using theoretical physics) feels more like they are using math to write fiction than to represent a 'reality'.  Even the m-theory proponents admit it can never be proved. It's almost as bad as theology's misuse of philosophical logic to support their superstitions.

Both uses of math/logic are simply modeling a possible scenario that might work within known boundaries, not an actual representation of what 'is'.   As soon as a group of people starts accepting such things as 'fact' with the illusion of solid logic behind it, it leads to a culture that builds on this.  

While not much of a fan, Stephen Hawkins has a decent proposal known as 'model-dependent reality', which generally says we each (or each culture) establish our own reality based on the information that is available to us.  It says that it's meaningless to discuss any specific 'reality'. But then he takes a turn with m-theory and seems to counter model-dependent reality by coming up with his own reality that seems to misuse math.   And the bizarre thing is that m-theory is implying that there are parallel universes.

Neils Bhor says otherwise about the use of physics... "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how Nature is. Physics concerns what we say about Nature."  Physics and science are just tools that allow us to manipulate nature but not specifically determine what nature 'is'.  The misuses of this kind of science end up with a viscous circle of theories that keep overriding each other and then the result is that masses don't trust science.  

Some scientists are misusing these tools for something that probably can't be accomplished, just as theology misuses philosophical logic to support their superstition.  Someone else coined a follow-up term, 'faith-dependent realism', which says that cultures will come up with some belief first based on superstition and then attempt to rationalize it through some form of logic to justify the faith.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Actually I use flying unicorns consistently in all seriousness as an example of the power of human imagination,

Flying unicorns may be real afterall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicorns_(cricket_team)

Now, if they were on a plane going to a game wouldn't they be "flying unicorns"?  And it wouldn't be one's imagination.

[mean]

Haha. I'm going to start a professional masturbating squad and we'll call ourselves The Blind Watchmakers.